'As a $60 FPS this game really should be worth $60 by including online play. Call of Duty has an online mode, but Dishonored does not have an online mode. Maybe it would be worth $30 (which is less than $60)but for a game, in 2012) a rich social media experience would be necessary for testosterone fueled 18-35 male demographics.

Sorry, but a game with really outdated visuals (not that I mind those) and some gameplay flaws does not deserve a 10/10.

For example, changing weapons is complicated unless you click the wheel button, but changing fast by scrolling is hard.. There should be an option to map some powers that you use frequently. It makes no sense the heart and the teleport trick (and others) are in the same place as weapons.

This said, I'm still enjoying it very much. This is coming from someone who cannot get into new games easily and has dropped many games this year. Shitty Mass Effect 3, shitty Skyrim (but those are Rpg's, which I dislike by nature), shitty Max Payne 3, shitty AC:Revelations.

Anoni Mus:Sorry, but a game with really outdated visuals (not that I mind those) and some gameplay flaws does not deserve a 10/10.

For example, changing weapons is complicated unless you click the wheel button, but changing fast by scrolling is hard.. There should be an option to map some powers that you use frequently. It makes no sense the heart and the teleport trick (and others) are in the same place as weapons.

This said, I'm still enjoying it very much. This is coming from someone who cannot get into new games easily and has dropped many games this year. Shitty Mass Effect 3, shitty Skyrim (but those are Rpg's, which I dislike by nature), shitty Max Payne 3, shitty AC:Revelations.

You can assign weapons to the d-pad, which makes switching between them fast and simple. So, there is an option to map powers that you use frequently. And though you may personally find it nonsensical to have powers and weapons in the same wheel, that's a matter of taste, not a design flaw.

Yeh. Good game. Little shorter than could be, but then I was reminded of how similar the mission system is to the Hitman and Splinter Cell games, and how much more there is to do than in those, so I was happy again.But I have a problem with one of the passive abilities available. Shadowkill. If you stab someone from behind, you also disintegrate them completely. On second level, you disintegrate everyone you kill, no matter how you did. But they still count towards chaos. Chaos increases when you're extra-violent, leaving bodies around. Means the city guard will get rather twitchy and the rats will increase in number thanks to the extra food. But with Shadowkill, there aren't any bodies to be found (they are reduced to nothing), so there shouldn't be any extra plague rats, and nobody should be the wiser that someone killed someone. Said people just up and disappear. The Outsider himself could've eaten them for all the people now. But the game still reacts to you killing people with Shadowkill as if you just normally did.I know that there's only so much the developers can take into account, but the fact that this ability's use does not make any difference on the world leaves me a bit 45-degree-angle-faced.

Combine Rustler:Yeh. Good game. Little shorter than could be, but then I was reminded of how similar the mission system is to the Hitman and Splinter Cell games, and how much more there is to do than in those, so I was happy again.But I have a problem with one of the passive abilities available. Shadowkill. If you stab someone from behind, you also disintegrate them completely. On second level, you disintegrate everyone you kill, no matter how you did. But they still count towards chaos. Chaos increases when you're extra-violent, leaving bodies around. Means the city guard will get rather twitchy and the rats will increase in number thanks to the extra food. But with Shadowkill, there aren't any bodies to be found (they are reduced to nothing), so there shouldn't be any extra plague rats, and nobody should be the wiser that someone killed someone. Said people just up and disappear. The Outsider himself could've eaten them for all the people now. But the game still reacts to you killing people with Shadowkill as if you just normally did.I know that there's only so much the developers can take into account, but the fact that this ability's use does not make any difference on the world leaves me a bit 45-degree-angle-faced.

The whole point of that skill is just to make it so no one will find a corpse and get alerted. They will still notice that they're men are just gone, and would still want more guards to try and figure out what the fuck is going on. If in real life the majority of a mansion just disappeared, and there was no evidence of where they are, you can damn well bet that there would be more guards.

Anoni Mus:Sorry, but a game with really outdated visuals (not that I mind those) and some gameplay flaws does not deserve a 10/10.

For example, changing weapons is complicated unless you click the wheel button, but changing fast by scrolling is hard.. There should be an option to map some powers that you use frequently. It makes no sense the heart and the teleport trick (and others) are in the same place as weapons.

This said, I'm still enjoying it very much. This is coming from someone who cannot get into new games easily and has dropped many games this year. Shitty Mass Effect 3, shitty Skyrim (but those are Rpg's, which I dislike by nature), shitty Max Payne 3, shitty AC:Revelations.

There is an option to map powers, on consoles the D-pad can be mapped with 4 powers/weapons (I'm stealthing the first playthrough so I have 3 powers and sleep darts linked) and on the computer you can map 1-0 with things as well

Combine Rustler:Yeh. Good game. Little shorter than could be, but then I was reminded of how similar the mission system is to the Hitman and Splinter Cell games, and how much more there is to do than in those, so I was happy again.But I have a problem with one of the passive abilities available. Shadowkill. If you stab someone from behind, you also disintegrate them completely. On second level, you disintegrate everyone you kill, no matter how you did. But they still count towards chaos. Chaos increases when you're extra-violent, leaving bodies around. Means the city guard will get rather twitchy and the rats will increase in number thanks to the extra food. But with Shadowkill, there aren't any bodies to be found (they are reduced to nothing), so there shouldn't be any extra plague rats, and nobody should be the wiser that someone killed someone. Said people just up and disappear. The Outsider himself could've eaten them for all the people now. But the game still reacts to you killing people with Shadowkill as if you just normally did.I know that there's only so much the developers can take into account, but the fact that this ability's use does not make any difference on the world leaves me a bit 45-degree-angle-faced.

The whole point of that skill is just to make it so no one will find a corpse and get alerted. They will still notice that they're men are just gone, and would still want more guards to try and figure out what the fuck is going on. If in real life the majority of a mansion just disappeared, and there was no evidence of where they are, you can damn well bet that there would be more guards.

Doesn't that same logic apply though if half your guard ends up waking up in a dumpster or precariously perched on the ledge of a roof with tranq darts sticking out of their chests, with the person they were guarding dead or missing? But that doesn't increase your chaos any...

'As a $60 FPS this game really should be worth $60 by including online play. Call of Duty has an online mode, but Dishonored does not have an online mode. Maybe it would be worth $30 (which is less than $60)but for a game, in 2012) a rich social media experience would be necessary for testosterone fueled 18-35 male demographics.

erttheking:Didn't read the full review (What? It said it had spoilers) but...damn, five out of five?...when was the last time a game that a review that good on this website...ok, now I am REALLY looking forward to tuesday.

Dragon Age 2.

But yea, why on earth would you put spoilers in a review? That makes like, zero sense.

erttheking:Didn't read the full review (What? It said it had spoilers) but...damn, five out of five?...when was the last time a game that a review that good on this website...ok, now I am REALLY looking forward to tuesday.

Dragon Age 2.

But yea, why on earth would you put spoilers in a review? That makes like, zero sense.

The spoiler in question is the basic set up of the plot, which is something I always include in reviews. If you already know why your character is dishonored - a plot point that was revealed in several different pre-launch trailers - then the review has no spoilers. If, however, you don't know any of that, I'd rather let you experience it as it happens in the beginning of the game.

MDSnowman:When I first saw trailers for this game I was totally unimpressed. It looked like a more steam punk version of Bioshock.

Then I saw the game play previews. The same mission done with stealth, and without. The one without stealth looked fun, but ho-my-gawd the stealth game play video nearly made me drool.

Since that video this has been my most anticipated game of the year.

You won't be disappointed :)

According to Steam I have 12 hours played so far (minus about 1 hour where I went back to old missions and just dicked around for fun) and I'm only on the 4th mission of apparently 9. Trying to go as nonlethal as I can and so far I'm absolutely loving this game. The amount of options you have is staggering and the level design is really, really good (although it'd be nice to have more nonlethal options than just sleep darts and choking...)

Just dont go straight to objectives (in fact, I'd recommend turning the objective and heart displays off completely) and you can spend a lot of time on this game in each mission, finding everything there is to offer.

This seems like a game I can thoroughly enjoy, I have a question though. How "buggy" is the game? I hear alarm bells whenever I read Bethesda.

What system did you play it on and did you notice much going wrong?

Bethesda is the publisher, not the developer. Arkane Studios is the developer.

shadowslayer81:I've been hearing some things about the length of the game itself, Susan any sort of opinion before the inevitable fallout comes?

Like I've heard people have been beating the game in 4 hours.

Bullshit. It might be possible to beat the game in 4 hours if you've played it before, if you try to get to your target as fast as possible if you skip through all the cutscenes, if if if. Anyone actually playing the game to enjoy it will be spending about 20 hours with it, easily.

That's pretty much what I've heard from other reviewers. You CAN rush through the game but you'd be doing yourself a disservice. These missions also seem to have much more replaying in mind than other stealth games I have. For eg, I've never heard of assassination targets getting randomly reassigned routes and locations. Should help keep the playthroughs fresh along with the range of options you've got.

This seems like a game I can thoroughly enjoy, I have a question though. How "buggy" is the game? I hear alarm bells whenever I read Bethesda.

What system did you play it on and did you notice much going wrong?

Bethesda is the publisher, not the developer. Arkane Studios is the developer.

shadowslayer81:I've been hearing some things about the length of the game itself, Susan any sort of opinion before the inevitable fallout comes?

Like I've heard people have been beating the game in 4 hours.

Bullshit. It might be possible to beat the game in 4 hours if you've played it before, if you try to get to your target as fast as possible if you skip through all the cutscenes, if if if. Anyone actually playing the game to enjoy it will be spending about 20 hours with it, easily.

That's pretty much what I've heard from other reviewers. You CAN rush through the game but you'd be doing yourself a disservice. These missions also seem to have much more replaying in mind than other stealth games I have. For eg, I've never heard of assassination targets getting randomly reassigned routes and locations. Should help keep the playthroughs fresh along with the range of options you've got.

YEah, the assassination targets in at least some of the missions (im not sure if all are, but I haven't even beat the game yet) are randomized.

Also, the placement and number of rats, guards, and weepers is different depending on whether you have a high or low chaos rating.

Farther than stars:"Loyalists" are your benefactors, eh? Too bad the game forces you into a perspective in which you strive for birthright as being the defining attribute of just leadership.

Interesting, a Marxist deconstruction of the plot!

Actually, as far as I can see, you are mostly motivated by your close personal relationship with the empress and her kid. There is no suggestion the role of lord protector is hereditary, seems ruthlessly competency based.

I don't get why people are giving Susan a hard time about the 5 star review. It appears from the review to be 1 enjoyable experience overal, 2 great art direction, 3 feels like living world, 4 decent game play, and 5 fun. Which tends to be the 5 parts they judge by, and why a star for each. I may be wrong here since I don't know how Susan equals x to how many stars. Though what the site has for what 5 stars means goes as so.

Five stars. This is as good as gaming currently gets, the crème de la crème. This doesn't imply perfection, merely that the experience you'll have will be exceptionally enjoyable.

Farther than stars:"Loyalists" are your benefactors, eh? Too bad the game forces you into a perspective in which you strive for birthright as being the defining attribute of just leadership.

Interesting, a Marxist deconstruction of the plot!

Actually, as far as I can see, you are mostly motivated by your close personal relationship with the empress and her kid. There is no suggestion the role of lord protector is hereditary, seems ruthlessly competency based.

The game is bloody brillant btw.

Oh, I'm not implying the game's not fun. It probably is a hell lot of fun. But let's examine it in the context of Mass Effect 2. Hell of a lot of fun, but the fact that you had to stick with Cerberus always left that niggling feeling at the back of my mind, even more so since my character's entire team was killed on Akuze by a Cerberus experiment, so that every fiber of my body was screaming to get away from them.I figure I'd have the same kind of feeling with Dishonored. It doesn't matter why you're working for them, what matter is that you're working for them. Of course with Mass Effect 2 you always have that excuse of "but... the galaxy needs saving", which is kind of a good cop-out to set aside your morals.But with Dishonored, if you're staying loyal to the empress, all you're really doing is preferring one dictatorial rule to another.And let's not forget, loyalist protectors tend not to be your most individualistic type of person, which is exactly what I want in a game that's about choices: the choice to be who I really want to be. The fact that that's limited to the archaic imagery they've chosen to work from will probably taint the story for me in the same way that Mass Effect 2's story will always be tainted to me.

P.S. Technically it's a democratic (or republican) deconstruction of the plot, but thanks for noticing. ;)

Farther than stars:"Loyalists" are your benefactors, eh? Too bad the game forces you into a perspective in which you strive for birthright as being the defining attribute of just leadership.

Interesting, a Marxist deconstruction of the plot!

Actually, as far as I can see, you are mostly motivated by your close personal relationship with the empress and her kid. There is no suggestion the role of lord protector is hereditary, seems ruthlessly competency based.

The game is bloody brillant btw.

Oh, I'm not implying the game's not fun. It probably is a hell lot of fun. But let's examine it in the context of Mass Effect 2. Hell of a lot of fun, but the fact that you had to stick with Cerberus always left that niggling feeling at the back of my mind, even more so since my character's entire team was killed on Akuze by a Cerberus experiment, so that every fiber of my body was screaming to get away from them.I figure I'd have the same kind of feeling with Dishonored. It doesn't matter why you're working for them, what matter is that you're working for them. Of course with Mass Effect 2 you always have that excuse of "but... the galaxy needs saving", which is kind of a good cop-out to set aside your morals.But with Dishonored, if you're staying loyal to the empress, all you're really doing is preferring one dictatorial rule to another.And let's not forget, loyalist protectors tend not to be your most individualistic type of person, which is exactly what I want in a game that's about choices: the choice to be who I really want to be. The fact that that's limited to the archaic imagery they've chosen to work from will probably taint the story for me in the same way that Mass Effect 2's story will always be tainted to me.

P.S. Technically it's a democratic (or republican) deconstruction of the plot, but thanks for noticing. ;)

The phrase "individual rights" didn't even enter the lexicon until the 18th century (via Thomas Paine, in fact).

Dishonored's society is the equivalent of several hundred years before that - mostly inspired by London circa 1666. What you're proposing is that Corvo either be wildly anachronistic within the framework of the game, or that he be the most progressive and brilliant social philosopher in Dunwall.

Kopikatsu:No offense, but have you played a game with a heavy focus on first person platforming or first person stealth? Because it's not bias, that camera scheme just isn't any good at either of those things.

Even if you work really hard to make it work like what was done in Mirror's Edge, it's still pretty awful. ('Course, the opinion part of this is my thinking that Mirror's Edge and Thief were bad games)

You said it, "opinion". I've played first-person stealth games and I've liked them. And the platforming worked really well in this game. So I liked it. If you're of the very strange opinion that Thief was a bad game [and not even that you just didn't like it] then you aren't going to like this game. It's still not the game's, or the genre's, fault.

Anoni Mus:Sorry, but a game with really outdated visuals (not that I mind those) and some gameplay flaws does not deserve a 10/10.

I agree. Giving a game with gameplay flaws, graphics and visual style not fantastic and very run-of-the-mill story a 100% can only mean low standards. This is another game like Bioshock which I just can't understand why it got such high reviews. The only thing I can think of is the hype combined with the lack of other stealth games recently.

Anoni Mus:Sorry, but a game with really outdated visuals (not that I mind those) and some gameplay flaws does not deserve a 10/10.

I agree. Giving a game with gameplay flaws, graphics and visual style not fantastic and very run-of-the-mill story a 100% can only mean low standards. This is another game like Bioshock which I just can't understand why it got such high reviews. The only thing I can think of is the hype combined with the lack of other stealth games recently.

By the standards given, I say that Susan is justified in giving it a 5 star review. Is the game perfect? No. Are there any glaring flaws that detract from the games enjoyability? Not really. Is the game awesome? Absolutely.

This is a game that is highly gameplay driven. The story is barebones but it is not really bad and it fits the tone and it consistent with the themes of the game. The graphics aren't Crysis level detailed, but they don't try to be. There's a deliberate art style choice here that I think really suits this game, and manages to show off both extreme opulence and extreme poverty and have both look great while not falling into the modern color palettes of only using brown and grey

Five stars. This is as good as gaming currently gets, the creme de la creme. This doesn't imply perfection, merely that the experience you'll have will be exceptionally enjoyable.

That's just it. From what I've played my experience wasn't exceptionally enjoyable.

But it's pointless to argue. There are just some games which I don't understand the praise for and this one is in that category for me.

Back to the review, I do think it's poor form that the fact a game 'isn't perfect' is always used to justify a 5-star review, but low scoring reviews always pick on points of imperfection. It doesn't make sense to me.

Five stars. This is as good as gaming currently gets, the creme de la creme. This doesn't imply perfection, merely that the experience you'll have will be exceptionally enjoyable.

That's just it. From what I've played my experience wasn't exceptionally enjoyable.

But it's pointless to argue. There are just some games which I don't understand the praise for and this one is in that category for me.

Back to the review, I do think it's poor form that the fact a game 'isn't perfect' is always used to justify a 5-star review, but low scoring reviews always pick on points of imperfection. It doesn't make sense to me.

There's a very clear difference to me between a game which has a few small quirks which don't overall detract from the game and one which has glaringly obvious flaws that ruin your enjoyment of an otherwise decent game.

Everything from this point on is my opinion only: Dishonored has, from what I've played of it, no fatal flaws, I've only witnessed one minor graphical bug, and all of the gameplay systems work nearly flawlessly. The gameplay, story, aesthetics, voice acting and environments are all very well done, cohesive and blend to create a very interesting new world to explore which is unlike any other game. And the gameplay is fantastically fun and addicting and gives a very large array of options which is almost unprecedented in a modern videogame.

When compared with another game, for example Risen. The reason I choose Risen is that it was the game I was playing until Dishonored came out so I am most familiar with it at the moment. Risen is a pretty decent game which I would probably give 3 stars. The story is intriguing, the dialog is decent but the delivery is bland. The world is vast and fun to explore, but starts to feel empty once you've eliminated the enemies which never respawn. The game has a number of pretty annoying bugs, particularly relating to combat, which make combat very annoying at times. Some of the skills seem only half implemented with only a small number of options for what to create, and no real reward for making them except to resell them back to the merchant for maybe a slight profit.

The point I'm trying to make is that Risen's flaws begin to add up and make me wish for a game that was like Risen, but better and without the flaws of the game. I don't feel this way at all about Dishonored. The only thing that I feel is really missing from dishonored is a few more options for non-lethal takedowns other than sleep darts and the choke hold, which quickly becomes repetitive. But I understand why you're limited in this way: because it adds challenge for what should be the hardest style of play. And honestly, I can't even think of other ways to implement silent, non lethal takedowns anyway. This is why I would give Dishonored a 5 star rating and Risen a 3 star rating. Both are good games in their own rights, but one suffers from many flaws which make me wish for something more, while the other has nearly no flaws that I can point out.

But yeah, these are all opinions. You're entitled to yours just as much as I'm entitled to mine, and Susan is entitled to hers. You're free to disagree with me on my opinion, but I don't think it's fair to say that Susan and I fell victim to the hype or that our opinions are in some way biased and therefore wrong because we feel the game deserves a 5 star rating.

The point I'm trying to make is that Risen's flaws begin to add up and make me wish for a game that was like Risen, but better and without the flaws of the game. I don't feel this way at all about Dishonored. The only thing that I feel is really missing from dishonored is a few more options for non-lethal takedowns other than sleep darts and the choke hold, which quickly becomes repetitive. But I understand why you're limited in this way: because it adds challenge for what should be the hardest style of play. And honestly, I can't even think of other ways to implement silent, non lethal takedowns anyway. This is why I would give Dishonored a 5 star rating and Risen a 3 star rating. Both are good games in their own rights, but one suffers from many flaws which make me wish for something more, while the other has nearly no flaws that I can point out.

But yeah, these are all opinions. You're entitled to yours just as much as I'm entitled to mine, and Susan is entitled to hers. You're free to disagree with me on my opinion, but I don't think it's fair to say that Susan and I fell victim to the hype or that our opinions are in some way biased and therefore wrong because we feel the game deserves a 5 star rating.

Well it's not so much about opinions about a game as it is about the purpose of reviews in general.

This is actually interesting you brought up Risen because I would reverse the scores - for me Risen and Risen 2 are both as close to 5-stars as an open-world RPG can get, though I would hesitate to write a 5-star review for them. Yet I acknowledge they have flaws some of which are very severe indeed. Dishonored I'd probably give a 3 or 3.5.

Yet if I was reviewing for Escapist, I could write a review for Risen, (or any other flawed game), pointing out all those flaws and still say "but I enjoyed it immensely so I'm giving it 5 stars". After all why should I give it less if I enjoy it as much as perfect games which I gave 5 stars? And why should I give a high score for Dishonored if I didn't enjoy it, even if I can tick off the boxes "good gameplay", "good atmosphere", "interesting story" etc.?

Basically, I'm saying that a review rating based on my own enjoyment is a pretty pointless one.

ResonanceGames:The phrase "individual rights" didn't even enter the lexicon until the 18th century (via Thomas Paine, in fact).

Dishonored's society is the equivalent of several hundred years before that - mostly inspired by London circa 1666. What you're proposing is that Corvo either be wildly anachronistic within the framework of the game, or that he be the most progressive and brilliant social philosopher in Dunwall.

It would be as cringeworthy as when they did all that in Braveheart.

The difference being, however, that when watching a film, you're not acting from your own perspective. You are disconnected with all the characters on the screen. With a game, however, and especially a first-person one, the way you play it is logically affected by our modern-age liberalistic views.

After a playthrough on the PS3 (with Ghost and No Kills achieved), the game does not deserve a 5/5 score.

The game is short and lacks proper pacing. Everyone is going on about how much a change you are causing, but that's nowhere to be seen. Massive choices are just waved off and there is no visible change to anything that you've done. It's a bland, at times lifeless world. Despite looking pretty. It's also only 9 missions long, including the prologue. The shortest missions will take about 20-30 minutes to complete on the first run (unless you artificially start lengthening your game time by staring at every single faucet and painting), on a second run of a mission it took me ten minutes. Overall the game was about 9 hours due to some repeats on levels.

Dialog repeats itself. It's almost ridiculous how poor the implementation is. The same three sentences are repeated all the time by every single character, and it sounds like they hired only three people to do the background dialog. Most voice acting is fine, but side characters tend to be hammy.

The missions are repetitive. Also, at times the alternate ways of handling them are bugged and don't appear when they should - though this could be just a case of the PS3 being a PS3.

The enemies at times can see the main character through walls. It's also frustrating as hell when they all magically know where you are when ONE guard spots you.

The Blink talent is at times really unusable and difficult to focus. Especially when having to move fast to places.

The river crust. Seriously. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?

The menus are a chore, especially when switching weapons or talents.

Loading times are unforgivably long. Especially when having to repeat a certain mission point over and over.

Regardless, Dishonored was a surprisingly good game (meaning that it's one of the rare games in the past few years that I've actually happily finished), but it's so flawed and feels in places so rushed that it can only be chalked up to the common hubris that The Escapist seems to constantly fall back on that they could give a full five out of five score.

Five stars. This is as good as gaming currently gets, the creme de la creme. This doesn't imply perfection, merely that the experience you'll have will be exceptionally enjoyable.

That's just it. From what I've played my experience wasn't exceptionally enjoyable.

Aint just you, but to me it was worth 5 starts. And to Susan it was worth 5 stars.... Saying that we only liked the game because of hype (One example) is a bit.. insulting to our intelligence isnt it?

What im saying is, this is not neccesarily purely opinionbased, the things brought up in this comment-section 'against' the game is opinionbased.

Art-design is crap. (Subjective)Story is boring (Subjective)Pacing is bad (Subjective)Minor graphical errors (Not worth a star)No magic abilities on the wheel (You can assign it to a hotkey, arguement invalid. Even if not thats not worth a star)Choices didnt affect anything, i completed each mission in 10 minutes (I hate it when people say this, but you're blind)

A review like this, if you judge from the above. Can only be subjective. Rather than starting from 0 and moving up as each negative factor is counted in, I think a review is starting at 5 and taking away from the flaws... And this game simply didnt have a lot of flaws, I'd say that its pretty much flawless at what it tried to do.